http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
Those who said that America - and perhaps even the world at large - would never be the same after September 11 turn
out to have been right only in part. American legislators have not found any anthrax in their recent mail, and so some of
them, encouraged by recent remarks from officials of previous administrations, wonder openly whether further combat in
the Middle East is even necessary.

They are insisting not only that President George W Bush provide them with a convincing bill of particulars regarding
Saddam Hussein, but also that they approve any future action. This despite their full endorsement of such action on
September 14 last.

In short, business as usual. Some other things have certainly changed. The pre-September 11 George W Bush was a
relatively colourless figure, uncomfortable with international affairs and, despite his strong religious faith, largely bereft
of what his father famously referred to as "the vision thing". The post-September 11 President is decisive, fully engaged
in his mission, and quite eloquent on the war against terrorism, with an economy of language that we have not heard
from a president since Truman.

Similarly, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, who had been tagged as the cabinet member least likely to succeed,
has become a matinee idol. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, may score higher in the polls, but nobody races to the
television to watch his press conferences; they do Rumsfeld's. The transformation began immediately after the first
aircraft hit the World Trade Center, and Mr. Rumsfeld told his staff: "I've been around for a while, and, believe me, this is
not the last one we'll see today."

The greatest change has come among the American people themselves. Americans are the first people in history to
believe that peace is the normal condition of mankind, but this reassuring conviction was effectively shattered, for this
generation at least, on September 11. Americans now believe, with Machiavelli, that there are many people who are
more inclined to do evil than to do good, and the only way to deal with them is to dominate them. They hope and
believe that Saddam will not be the last terrorist tyrant to fall at their hands.

Americans are traditionally in a great hurry, but they have shown great patience with this president. They recognize
that the war will be long and they trust that they have somehow struck lucky with their leader at a moment of peril.
Recent drops in the President's popularity suggest that the people's patience may be wearing a bit thin, but now it
seems that action is imminent and they will soon find out if Mr. Bush is up to this challenge.

The Americans may have been patient so far, but, as General Patton once reminded his troops, Americans can't stand a
loser. Yet it is hard to imagine America will lose. So long as the people are convinced they are well led, and the war goes
well, they will support it. One has a tendency to forget that, in the Second World War, it took nearly two years after
Pearl Harbor before decisive victories were achieved, yet the American people did not waver.

Americans are not fond of realpolitik; they are a people of crusades and spasms. They almost never fight limited wars
for limited objectives (most Americans now believe the 1991 Gulf war was excessively limited); as Ronald Reagan said,
the country is too great to have small ambitions. Few have noticed that President Bush has in fact outlined a war of vast
dimensions. Lurking behind the awkward phrase "regime change" is a vision of a war to destroy the Middle Eastern
tyrannies and replace them with freer societies, as was done in Japan and Germany after the Second World War.

Early on after the September 11 attack, it was widely said that America would have to fight a new kind of war,
conducted in large part in the shadows, with covert instruments and secret warriors. In the event, it turns out to be a
very traditional sort of war, because they have found that the common denominator of their enemies is tyranny.

The states that undergird the terror network are Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia. They do not share ethnicity
(Iranians are not Arabs) or even religious conviction (both Saddam and the Assad family in Syria came to power as
secular socialists), but they are all petty tyrants. And the most lethal weapon against them is the people they oppress.

The Iranians demonstrate almost ceaselessly against the mullahcracy in Teheran; in recent days, there has been street
fighting in Isfahan, political demonstrations in Teheran, and the petroleum pipeline has been shut down in Tabriz.
Student leaders have called for a nationwide demonstration today, a clear sign of the Iranian people's desire for
freedom.

The Iraqis were willing to risk everything in the final weeks of the Gulf war, and the unreliability of Saddam's armies is
well known. If Iranians and Iraqis are freed, the Syrian dictatorship cannot possibly survive, and the Saudi royal family
would have to choose between shutting down its worldwide network of radical Wahhabi mosques or facing the same
destiny as the others.

A war on such a scale has hardly been mentioned by commentators and politicians, yet it is implicit in everything
President Bush has said and done. He has directed the creation of an Iraqi government-in-exile that is committed to
democracy, and he has promised the Iranian people that America will support them in their desire for freedom. He has
recognized that democracy is essential for peace between Palestinians and Israelis, and that requirement surely
extends throughout the entire region.

In one of those delightful paradoxes in which history so delights, America's enemies sought to destroy it on September
11, only to find their own survival at mortal risk. And all those who said the world would never be the same, thinking
that America had been fundamentally shaken and demoralized, will soon find that, instead, America's enemies will be
the subject of revolutionary change at its hands.

Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

09/10/02: Iran & Afghanistan & Us: We'll have to deal with the mullahcracy, sooner or later09/04/02: Iran, according to the Times: All the nonsense that's fit to print08/21/02: Life and death of Abu Nidal tells us a great deal about our enemies08/08/02: Can You Keep a Secret?: The media silence on Iran08/06/02: Fantasy Reporting: The latest disinformation from the Washington Post08/02/02: Propping Up the Terror Masters: Europe's Solana on tour07/16/02: Bush vs. the Mullahs: Getting on the side of the Iranian freedom fighters07/12/02: The State Department Goes Mute: It's official: State has no message07/09/02: History being made, but the West appears clueless06/05/02: Is George Tenet endangering peace in Israel?06/03/02: Ridiculous, even for a journalist05/20/02: So how come nobody's been fired yet?05/14/02: Open doors for thugs04/20/02: Iran on the Brink … and the U.S. does nothing 04/16/02: Its the war, stupid … someone remind Colin Powell 04/08/02: Gulled: In the Middle East, Arafat doesn't matter04/02/02: Faster, Please: The war falters03/26/02: The Revolution Continues: What's brewing in Iran03/18/02: Iran simmers still: Where's the press?03/05/02: We can't lose any more ground in Iran 02/14/02: The Great Iranian Hoax02/12/02: Unnoticed Bombshell: Key information in a new book01/31/02: The truth behind the Powell play01/29/02: My past with "Johnny Jihad's" lawyer 01/21/02: It's Munich, all over again01/08/02: What's the Holdup?: It's time for the next battles in the war against terrorism 12/11/01: We must be imperious, ruthless, and relentless12/06/01: Remembering my family friend, Walt Disney11/28/01: The Barbara Olson Bomb: Understanding the war11/13/01: How We're Doing: The Angleton Files, IV11/06/01: A great revolutionary war is coming10/25/01: How to talk to a terrorist10/23/01: Creative Reporting: Learning to appreciate press briefings10/19/01: Not the Emmys: A Beltway award presentation10/15/01: Rediscovering American character10/11/01: Somehow, I've missed Arafat's praise of the first stage of our war on terrorism10/04/01: What do we not know?09/28/01: Machiavelli On Our War: Some advice for our leaders09/25/01: No Room for the U.N.: Keeping Annan & co. out of the picture09/21/01: Creative destruction09/14/01: Who Killed Barbara Olson?08/22/01: How Israel will win this war 08/15/01: Bracing for war 08/09/01: More Dithering Democrats08/02/01: Delirious Dems07/31/01: Consulting a legendary counterspy about Chandra and Condit, cont'd07/19/01: Be careful what you wish for 07/17/01: Consulting a legendary counterspy about Chandra and Condit 07/05/01: Let Slobo Go 05/30/01: Anybody out there afraid of the Republicans?05/09/01: The bad guys to the rescue 05/07/01: Bye-bye, Blumenthal 04/20/01: Handling China04/11/01: EXAM TIME!04/05/01: Chinese over-water torture03/27/01: Fighting AIDS in Africa is a losing proposition03/14/01: Big Bird, Oscar, and other threats03/09/01: Time for a good, old-fashioned purge03/06/01: Powell’s great (mis)adventure02/26/01: The Clinton Sopranos02/20/01: Unity Schmoonity: Sharon is defying the will of the people01/30/01: The Rest of the Rich Story01/22/01: Ashcroft the Jew01/11/01: A fitting close to the Clinton years12/26/00: Continuing Clinton's shameful legacy12/21/00: Clinton’s gift for Bush